As you know, McHugh J provides excellent advice to lawyers who might find themselves dealing with clients with shady intentions.   

"When the lawyer goes beyond advice and draws documents for the purpose of enabling a client to achieve an objective, it is, I think, almost impossible to contend that the adviser does not aid the commission of any offence which results."

Julia Gillard has been very keen to promote the view that she simply gave advice to Wilson and Blewitt about the incorporation of an Association.  Here are a few quotes from her "marathon" press conferences where she "exhausted the questions from the nation's journalistic elite".

This graphic from the Australian Financial Review shows us what Ms Gillard said to her managing partner Peter Gordon in a recorded exit interview on her departure from the firm.   She confirms that she took instructions on Slater and Gordon's behalf from Bruce Wilson to incorporate the Association, she drafted the documents and submitted the rules to the relevant WA Government authority for the incorporation.   She goes on to confirm that the WA Government had written back stating that the Association was ineligible for incorporation.   Gillard goes on to confirm that on that event, she took further instructions from Wilson and prepared a response for the WA Government that she then submitted to the WA Government again on Wilson's instructions.  She confirms to her boss that he is correct in stating that the AWU Workplace Reform Association was incorporated by Slater and Gordon on Wilson's instructions.

Ms Gillard is correct in noting the distinction between a lawyer providing advice, and a lawyer getting involved with a shonky client and drafting documents that lead to and are instrumental in the achievement of fraud.

On 20 August, 1991, Ms Gillard was asked by Bruce Wilson to provide legal advice on a differentissue that related to the union's rules.   In response, Ms Gillard went away, did some research, examined the relevant Rules of the AWU and drafted a letter recording her advice to Mr Wilson.

It's clear in this letter that Ms Gillard's role in this instance was limited to providing advice.   She gave Mr Wilson all of the background and interpretation about the Rules of the AWU and Industrial Law and left any final decision and instructions to take further action up to him.  

And that letter marks the completion of Ms Gillard's involvement in that matter.   That is what a lawyer "providing advice" looks like.

She opened a file recording the matter number 2519, that the Industrial Unit had carriage and that she was the partner responsible

And she confirms at the start of the letter precisely what her client's instructions to her were, namely that she provides advice on the issue.

That letter to Wilson was sent in August 1991 at the start of their romance.  Ms Gillard did not disclose the change in circumstances and conflict of interest that developed towards the end of 1991, that one of the major professional contacts she had within her client the AWU was now her lover and that as a result his personal interests and her personal interests were commencing to intermingle.   This placed her and her partners in a dangerous position should it later be discovered that any advice or action she provided for Wilson was to the detriment of the AWU.

If Ms Gillard was telling the truth when she said "I provided advice about the incorporation of an association", then perhaps her letter would have looked something like this, with thanks to the range of lawyers and others who have contributed.

4 April, 1992

Dear Mr Wilson,

You have asked me to provide you with advice about the options available to you in order to establish and maintain a fund to raise money for election expenses that you and other AWU officials will incur in the upcoming elections within the AWU.

I note that due to our changed domestic circumstances I have declared a conflict of interest in my relationship with an official of the AWU and that as a result I have excused myself from any further professional dealings with you on this matter.  My colleague Mr Murphy will be in contact with you to confirm you instructions.

Having taken your instructions I have been authorised to provide you with legal advice on this final occasion.  I have opened a file on this matter and any of our partners will be able to assist you as the matter progresses.

As you noted in our meeting of earlier this year on this matter, election to a paid office within the AWU is a personal benefit to successful candidates, and expenses associated with any election campaign are personal expenses.   No part of any AWU asset, property or income may be used in any way in an official's election campaign.   Election expenses must be met from your personal resources and your fundraising ability in your own name or the name of a body corporate that is clearly not passed off as part of the AWU.  You should speak with your accountant about the tax deductibility of those expenses.

You have asked me to advise you about the use of the name Australian Workers' Union in your fund-raising vehicle.

AUSTRALIAN WORKERS’ UNION: Ownership of the Name

The Australian Workers’ Union was a registered organisation and incorporated pursuant to Sec 192 the Industrial Relations Act 1988.

The Act gave the organisation a corporate status and the organisation operated pursuant to rules of the organisation and these rules had general requirements as prescribed by the Act.

The Australian Workers’ Union is Australia’s oldest union tracing its history back to the formation of the Australian Shearers Union on 14 June 1886 in Victoria.

The union changed its name to the Australian Workers’ Union following an amalgamation between the Australian Shearers Union and the General Labourers Union in 1894. The origin of the name came from a newspaper published by the union at that time – the Australian Worker.

The Australian Workers’ Union became a registered organisation under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (the predecessor of the Industrial Relations Act 1998) on the 16 May 1904, the second union in Australia to be so registered under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904.

At that time it was Australia’s largest union and until the 1960’s the Australian Workers’ Union remained Australia’s largest union.

In 1992 the registered rules of the Australian Workers’ Union describes itself as an Association bearing the title of the Australian Workers’ Union as follows:

“Rule 1 – Name

The Association formed under these rules and hereinafter referred to as the Union shall be known by the title of The Australian Workers’ Union and is registered under the Industrial Relations Act 1988”.

The title of the Australian Workers’ Union over many years has been abbreviated to the initials AWU and in Rule 89 – Definitions:

“The AWU or “Union” means The Australian Workers’ Union”

The title of the Australian Workers’ Union describes the Association registered under the Industrial Relations Act 1988 and this title is owned by the union. The title to the name of a legal entity indicates the ownership of that name.

The Association described as the Australian Workers’ Union has been in existence as federally registered union since 1904 and uses the words Australian Workers’ Union or AWU to describe itself and represent itself to the world.

In 1991 and so far this year the Australian Workers’ Union as a legal entity was a respondent to hundreds of legally binding Federal Awards and industrial agreements throughout Australia in the many industries and callings covered by its membership.

The Federal Union owns properties throughout Australia. It enters into legally binding contracts and incurs debts on behalf of the organisation.

Any legal entity using the name of the Australian Workers’ Union in its title without its authority would be in breach of the common law tort of passing off and possibly in breach of the criminal law.  

Authority to Use Title

Only the AWU Annual Convention, which represents the highest deliberative body of the union, has the authority to permit and give the consent of the union to any incorporated association that is independent of the union to use the name of the Australian Workers’ Union in its title.

 

Governance of the Australian Workers’ Union

The rules of the union required that it is governed by elected officials and delegates and under those rules the governing bodies elected by the members were as follows:

1. The Annual Convention of delegates and officials was the highest deliberative body of the union.
   1. The Executive Council (sometimes known as the National Executive) conducted the Management of the affairs of the union subject to the authority of the Convention.
   2. Each State branch executive committee could decide any questions affecting only the branch.

Rule 31: Powers of Convention

The convention of the AWU is the highest deliberative body of the union and shall have the power to decide and direct the policy of the union in matters affecting the interests of the members in all industrial, political and municipal concerns.

The convention meets annually no later than 14 February each year.   This year's meeting has now passed.

Members of the Convention consist of the National President, General Secretary, Assistant General Secretary and delegates elected annually from each branch in proportion to the financial membership of each branch.

Pursuant to Rule 33 in order that the Convention members may consider matters of policy for industrial and administrative matters affecting the interests of the members, the General Secretary must receive policy proposals not later than 1 December prior to the Convention.

 

Any proposals for the Convention may be submitted by:

1. The Executive Council
   1. A Branch Executive
   2. Any Branch General Meeting or Branch Delegates meeting
   3. Any Local or Section Committee duly constituted
   4. Any properly called meeting of members wherever held consisting of not less than 15 financial members
   5. The President, Vice President, General Secretary or assistant General Secretary.

All proposals passed at meetings of at least 15 members, wherever held, under this rule must stipulate the name of the place at which the meeting was held, the date of the meeting and must be signed by the Chairperson.

The authority to use of the name the Australian Workers’ Union by an incorporated association anywhere in Australia is a matter of policy for the Convention members to decide and any Convention resolutions are based on proposals submitted to the Convention in accordance with the rules of the union.

Under the rules of the union the Annual Convention as the highest deliberative body of the union  would have the power to decide as a matter of union  policy that it permits and authorises an incorporated Association under State laws to use the name of the Australian Workers’ Union in its title describe the name of the incorporated association.

However any such authority given would be subject to the Convention members being satisfied that the Association bearing its name is consistent with the Objects of the union including Rule 4 (c) namely, that such an incorporated association would be promoting the general and material welfare of AWU members.

We note that the 106^th Annual convention of the Australian Workers’ Union was held in January 1992 and its deliberations were reported in The Australian Worker, the official newspaper of the union.

In its report of the 106^th Annual Convention no resolution was passed authorising and permitting you to use the title the "Australian Workers’ Union" in any proposed  Workplace Reform Association.

For AWU Convention members to authorise the union name to be used by an incorporated association they would have to be satisfied as to the purposes of the association , who were  its office holders and be satisfied that the operation of the association would promote the welfare of AWU members.

Any AWU Convention member who proposed to incorporate an association whose purpose was described as promoting workplace reform amongst construction and maintenance workers or whose purpose was to develop changes to work to achieve safe workplaces would be met with the response that these purposes were already covered by the AWU and its objects.

No other governing body of the union has the power to authorise and permit an incorporated association to use the name of the Australian Workers’ Union to describe the name of the association.

Pursuant to Rule 36 the Executive Council of the union has the power to manage the affairs of the Union, subject to the direction of Convention.

The Executive Council does not have the power to determine the policy of the union that would permit an incorporated association to use the name of the union. This decision to allow you to use the AWU title would be a matter of policy for the union.

The Executive Council of the union has no power to authorise the title of the union be used to describe the name of an incorporated association.

Pursuant to Rule 43 (a) Branch Executive shall have power to decide any question affecting such Branch which may arise within the rules of the Australian Workers’ Union.

No Branch Executive has the power to authorise an incorporated association to use the name of the union to describe the name of an incorporated association.  Thus we cannot accept your instructions to incorporate any legal entity bearing the title AWU or the words Australian Workers' Union as those instructions would exceed your authority within the union.

Under the rules of the AWU, no Branch officer has the ostensible or implied authority to authorise an association to use the title of the Australian Workers’ Union to describe the name of an incorporated association.

No lawyer retained by the AWU could form a bona fide opinion that in the absence of a resolution from the AWU Annual Convention that a Branch officer could have any authority to permit an unrelated association to the union to use its name to describe an association.

Your Instructions that you Require an Incorporated Association for your purposes 

You have instructed us that you are aware of an industrial company that wishes to pay money to your personal re-election account and not to the account of the union.   You have instructed us that the industrial company recommends that you establish an incorporated association as the appropriate body corporate to issue invoices, to maintain bank accounts, to enter into an agreement with the industrial company and to fund your expenses in any election campaign.

You have instructed us that you have submitted an Application to Incorporate the Australian Workers' Union Workplace Reform Association and that the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs in Western Australia has rejected your application.   You have asked us to "overcome the technical difficulties" the Commissioner has nominated in your application.

For the foregoing reasons about the use of the AWU name and other compelling considerations, we advise you that we agree with the Commissioner's advice to you and we further advise that this firm could not lawfully take instructions from you to achieve the end of incorporating an association bearing the words Australian Workers' Union in its title.

The WA Associations Incorporation Act provides that an Association shall not be incorporated unless it has more than 5 members, yours has only 2 (Part II Section 4 (1) of The Act).

You mentioned that the industrial company proposes to pay you on the raising by your incorporated association of invoices.   Section 4 (2) of the Act states, "An Association for the purpose of trading or securing pecuniary profit for the members from the transactions of the Association is not eligible for incorporation under this Act".   You should consider a proprietary company limited by shares or some other legal structure if you wish to raise invoices and trade for profit.

Section 4 (3) of the act states that a Trade Union will not be registered under this Act.  The definition for what constitutes a Trade Union is the definition contained in the WA Trade Unions Act of 1903 and the incorporated association you propose fits that definition and is thus ineligible for incorporation.  You have suggested we write to the Commissioner to vouch for the bona fides of the proposed Association in this regard.   We cannot take your instructions as it would be unlawful to mislead the Commissioner.

You have suggested to us that an incorporated association would provide more certainty for you and like minded officials of the AWU who may wish to contribute funds to the re-election fund.   Unfortunately the WA Associations Incorporation Act provides that every Association includes a rule to the effect that no part of the Association's income or property can be distributed directly or indirectly to any member of the Association.   Even if the Association was wound up the proceeds of any assets liquidated would be donated under the law to another charitable association.  You and other contributors could never legally recover any money you paid in to the Association.

We urge you to reconsider any further submission to the WA Corporate Affairs Commissioner for the incorporation of the AWU Workplace Reform Association.   We should advise you that the potential for such an entity to be misused in passing itself off as an authorised unit of the AWU is so great that we would feel duty bound immediately to report any further attempts at registration to the AWU and potentially the police.

All the best for an honest, open and transparent future!

Yours Faithfully,

Julia Gillard

Partner, Slater and Gordon

PS - dinner at The Windsor Hotel tonight, on me! 

This letter from the joint secretaries of the WA branch of the AWU (released by WA Police under FOI and redacted as to names) is quite instructive when read now.

The letter goes on to describe attempts to gain information from the 1997 secretary of the National Construction Branch in Perth.

AWU files - gone, covers left.

Slater and Gordon - files gone.

Federal Court - files gone.

WA Archives - files gone, only the empty covers remain.

I've read quite a bit of commentary today about this question "did Thiess receive the services it paid for in its remittances for the invoices raised by the AWU-Workplace Reform Association Inc?"

Val Majkus in particular challenges StephenJ's assertion that no services were provided.

This letter from Detective Sergeant McAlpine of the WA Fraud Squad who intitially investigated The AWU Scandal might assist in understanding some of the evidence he reviewed.  He's writing to the AIRC seeking access to information obtained by the court by subpoena.

I think it's reasonable to assume DET SGT McALPINE bases his assertions of fact on a belief that what he tells the court is true.

McAlpine had access to witnesses and documents.  He says 

"On-site."

In reading the summaries of statements made to police in WA (released under FOI) I think McAlpine's view of the arrangements between Wilson and certain Thiess executives is accurate.

McAlpine had the original letter written by Jukes of Thiess.  McAlpine says the invoices and original letter accompanying the purchase order, referred to workplace reform "onsite".

There's ample direct evidence to say that did not happen.

It's your car, you provide it to your employee Julia Gillard.

You're getting a bit worried about the way it's being driven.   It's been seen quite a few time parked where it shouldn't be - one evening a news crew saw Tim the boyfriend scrape the car against a gate.

On 9 January this year you read on this website that the car had been pinged 8 times in 12 weeks for traffic offences.

You started to worry, so you asked your employee Julia Gillard who was driving the car.

Today, more than 4 months later, the latest instalment in her plan to avoid answering the simple question.   Who was driving?

January 15 update.

March 19 update.

On 12 April the uknown driver, "the 3rd party" wrote to the FOI people objecting to any information that would identify him/her being released.   A copy of the department's response to "the 3rd party" is at the bottom of this page.

Here's today's email from the department to our reader!

Email from FOI Officer, Legal and Strategic Support Branch, Department of Finance and Deregulation

To our reader

As you are aware, a request for internal review was made by a third party regarding your FOI request.  The Department has made a decision on this internal review.  A redacted copy of the decision provided to the applicant is attached.

 

You may request a review of this internal review decision to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) within 30 days (details of review rights are included in the attached decision letter and available on the OAIC’s website at http://www.oaic.gov.au/foi-portal/review_complaints.html).

While the decision maker has decided to release five documents in part, these documents cannot be released to you until the third parties review rights have expired.

 

Regards,

Our reader didn't waste any time, here's his note today to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner

Dear xx,

Please find attached a copy of the Report – Internal Review Decision,  dated today, May 20, 2013.

 

I understand the Parties have 30 days to object – is that correct?

 

From my perspective after a quick read of the decision, I certainly do not agree with the decision maker’s opinion. Essentially the argument not to release the names of the driver(s) and other details relative to the offences, in that this would be a breach of confidentiality and not be in the public interest.

 

I would challenge this, based on the undeniable fact that there has been and as far as the public knows, a person or persons driving the Prime Minister’s publicly funded motor vehicle with scant regard for the law in relation to road rules. If there was one, perhaps two instances of driving infringements, it could be argued that these were out of character for the driver and that the offences did not constitute a pattern of poor driving. As we know, it was not one or two instances and it was many. This is a situation where there is a person or persons suing a publicly funded vehicle, the Prime Minister’s vehicle  no less, showing some level of disregard for authority and certainly a level of irresponsible behaviour that is inconsistent with the level expected by the public.

 

How do we know this person(s) who recklessly drives the Prime Minister’s car in such an irresponsible manner, is still driving around continuing to break the law. Even if there are no more infringements, all that means is that they have not been caught again. This person(s) should not be permitted to use Government vehicles for a period of effective suspension. Without a penalty, the public could not be satisfied the abuse is not going to continue.  

 

I do not wish to know all of the information about the driver – I am not interested in, their Driver’s License details, their address, where the offence took place or details of the personal at Lease Plan.

 

However I am most interested in the names of the offenders and I would like to know whether the Commonwealth continues to support / allow that person to use Government funded cars, and in particular the Prime Minister’s car. It is most certainly of public interest we know who has caused the office of Prime Minster such embarrassment and if the 3^rd parties are continuing to use the car.

 

The person who reviewed "the 3rd party"s concerns and decided not to release his/her identity is

The Accountability bit in the departmental title must be ironic.  Although if "the 3rd party's" joint author is who I think she is and I was an ambitious Assistant Secretary, I might think of overturning the FOI decision that "the 3rd party" and his support team were appealing.

 The first bit of the letter telling "the 3rd party" that he/she is free to continue driving the PM's car without detection by us the car's owners says it all.

"The 3rd party" (often in just one night) had some serious help in his/her submission.  "The 3rd party" seems to have had a co-driver in writing the submission up, it's written from a "we" and at least one bit of the "we" wrote that the FOI response they were appealling would serve no public purpose. And whether or not to give weight to the old Heerey J decision in Colakovski is not the sort of talk over a bevvie you'd expect to hear at, say, the Texas V8 extravaganza or the Tige's head table. 

Get the sense that we're being screwed around?

Download Decision letter_Redacted

Thanks to Michelle Two and Hillbilly 33 for the link to this article.

"Julia, you bloody beauty."

LAWYER Josh Bornstein's mobile phone flashed at 9.41am on Thursday with the exultant text message: "Julia, you bloody beauty."

From the unlikely location of South America, the Maurice Blackburn chairman Bernard Murphy was letting his colleague Bornstein, who was in a meeting, know their one-time workmate was now Prime Minister.

Bornstein says: "She's intensely loyal, you may not speak to one another for a period of time . . . then you say to Julia, 'Do you mind if I seek your assistance on something?' and she will be there."

Appointment to the Federal Court of Australia as a Judge for Bernard Murphy, Gillard's partner in........a legal firm?      Julia, you bloody beauty!

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF OFFICE - Federal Court Judge

Judges of the Federal Court are appointed by the Governor-General to age 70.

The salary of a Federal Court judge is $402,880 per annum. Judges accrue six months

long leave after five years of service. When travelling within Australia on official

business, a Federal Court judge is entitled to the highest available class of airline travel

and travelling allowance at rates set by the Remuneration Tribunal.

Under the Judges’ Pensions Act 1968, Federal Court judges are entitled to a noncontributory pension of 60% of current judicial salary after attaining the age of 60 years

and having served 10 years or more as a judge or upon retirement on the ground of

permanent disability or infirmity. Pro rata pension is payable after six years service as a

judge upon retirement at age 70.

Further information relating to Terms and Conditions can be found at

www.remtribunal.gov.au. The current Remuneration Tribunal determination applying to

Federal Court judges is Determination 2012/09: Judicial and Related Offices –

Remuneration and Allowances.

Presumably debt, border protection, more than 1,000 men, women, children and babies drowned, carbon tax, union corruption, police investigating the Prime Minister, support for Craig Thomson and Peter Slipper are not on the script.

I could not let this pass without noting another step on our descension to an accommodation with barbarians.

I would have locked him up until he showed the respect for our justice system we all have to show.

Accused rioter Mohammed Issai Issaka berated in court after refusing to stand for Magistrate Jacqueline Milledge

Mohammed Issai Issaka, who was charged with riot, assaulting police and resisting arrest over the September incident, this morning said his religious beliefs stopped him from rising for the court - the standard practice whenever a judge or magistrate enters or leaves.

Magistrate Jacqueline Milledge repeatedly demanded Issaka stand for her, telling the accused man she didn't accept his refusal.

"You can tell me where it is in his religion that it says he cannot stand," she said to Issaka's lawyer.

"I was a magistrate at Bankstown Court for four years and I have never had to deal with such disrespect."

The hearing had to be postponed for nearly half an hour after the prosecution and defence consulted Ms Milledge, with the case eventually continuing after Issaka waited outside the courtroom as everyone stood for the magistrate.

You can read more here at The Australian.

Grace Collier explains the coalition's proposed laws to treat unions and union officials exactly the same as company directors.   Tell the truth, no misleading or deceptive conduct, no collusion and sweetheart deals, act in the interests of shareholders - not in the interests of getting a seat in parliament - and never do, say, or arrange anything for your own advantage as a result of your position with the union.

UPDATE - 4.55pm 20 May

I've been pondering this interview with Grace today and I had a vague recollection that Bill Shorten had said something recently that clearly shows Labor's problem with indulgence, patronage and a sel-perpetuating system that can't be fixed.   Yes, they say, it's got to be fixed, but not until after I've got my reward which I'll only get as a result of the system not being fixed.   And so says his replacement, and his, and his, and his......

Bill was asked about reforming a clearly broken Labor Party, what were his ideas?   My read of his answer below is,  yes, we need to reform, but not until I've exhausted my personal advantages from the mates I have in place.

“First, before the next election tempting as it might be to have a conversation about ourselves we’re not going to,’’ he says. “Let us have a conversation about what we’re going to do for Australia and Australians.

“But I do accept in the medium term we need to revisit how we make decisions, how we select candidates and how we involve people with ideas.’’

Tempting as it might be to take a long hard look at ourselves, the leaders like Swan, Gillard et al who have taken Australia into this terrible mess, tempting as it might be to assess our own performance, we're not going to do that.   You're not going to do that?

ENDS

Can you imagine Coles saying "buy your groceries from us or we'll stage a picket outside your house and blockade you in until you do?"

Whose interests are served in stoushes between unions like the CFMEU / AWU blues here?   It strikes me from the AWU's cavorting with big bosses that the AWU is interested in the big deals with big business because that's what tops up the AWU's coffers.